Help me develop this scenario idea.

[James Holloway]

Hello all,

I have relatively recently started playing Strange Aeons, and I'm turning over a scenario idea in my head. Technically, I suppose it's a mini-campaign. The idea (which I think I might have discussed on here before and which was inspired by some older threads) is to have a series of linked scenarios that begin in the distant past and end in the "modern" (ie 1920s/30s) period.

My campaign is set in the UK (insofar as it's set anywhere), and I want the first scenario to be based in the 9th century, during the period of Viking raids on England. One side plays the Vikings, who have come to loot some local target -- a church or burial mound or whatever -- that is said to be full of gold and treasure. Little do they know that the local monks aren't putting their holy relics in the mound for safekeeping, but rather to imprison what dwells there.

Second scenario is set during the period of the 17th-century witch hunts; we have a local witch who is being hunted down by an angry mob. In desperation, she calls on the powers of the thing in the mound to protect her -- augmented by the ghosts or corporeal remains of the Vikings who died back in the first scenario, maybe?

Third scenario will probably focus around an archaeological dig on the burial mound -- I haven't really worked this one out in my head yet.

So, forum members, how do you connect these three scenarios? I want the outcome of each one to have some impact on the setup of the next, and I'm not quite sure how to implement that. Perhaps the treasures the Vikings retrieve could be significant in some way? I've mentioned the idea of having them turn up as ghosts. But how do I connect 2 to 3?

(There will also be fishmen in 1, just because I have loads of them.)

(The choice of time periods is largely influenced by the models and scenery that I have available!)

[FramFramson]

It could be that the same malevolent spirit or creature is awakened each time?

[Uncle Mike]

This is a great idea...possibly I would set it up like a 'Black Dossier'. Pre-writing the scenarios into an overlaying story arc. You could have an artifact or curse or something pass down through the generations of a family...hence the linked campaign through time. The eventual goal could be to destroy the artifact or lift the curse? A bold endeavor and I hope to see pictures of this!

 

[James Holloway]

It could be that the same malevolent spirit or creature is awakened each time?

Definitely -- but at the same time you don't want to have the exact same encounter in each scenario, so it needs to awaken in a different way, if you see what I mean.

I think in the first one, the Vikings are trying to get the treasure back to their ship, with the added effect that each time they take a piece they run the risk of freeing the creature, perhaps? In the second one, I think perhaps summoning her master is the witch's ultimate goal and needs to be prevented. And as for the third, I don't know.

It makes sense to me that the only time you really to get to see the thing under the mound itself would be in the final scenario.

[Diplomatist]

Well, as you suggest the link between #1 and the subsequent scenarios is that an unsuccessful Viking player would leave more dead behind to be in thrall to the Thing in the Mound.  He would also leave more objects to be found during #3.  [My reading of SA is that even the most successful player would leave some dead behind and couldn't possibly win all the booty!].

The result of #2 could effect #3 in that a successful witch might summon something More Terrible to be encountered in #3.  I see this a little like the telephone box scenario - X number of uninterrupted turns in contact with an particular object would result in a successful summoning.

That would mean that a successful investigator/mob player from #2 would get an easier ride as archaeologists in #3.  If you want to make it more tricky for him in #3 if he wins #2 (ie, reward success with something more challenging) you could say that it is the witch's dying curse which results in the beastie.

Although it wouldn't be important to the Vikings exactly what they managed to swipe, you will agree that it is right and proper that in recovering objects in #3 the archaeologists will be more concerned with quality than quantity    You could devise a mechanism that determines what has been left behind at the end of #1.  It's up to you how generous that mechanism is  

I like the idea that the players only enter the mound and encounter the Thing Within during the excavation.  Might the mound actually be a portal to somewhere else?

Time to dig out the Dr Who episode 'The Daemons'?

[Diplomatist]

Thinking about it, I was assuming that in #3 the player is the archaeologists.  What if the continuity between between the scenarios is that the monks, the 'mob' and a group in #3 all have the same aim?  The player could represent local villagers (not quite a cult, but certainly an association) whose aim is to prevent the Thing Within from being awoken.  The Black Dossier, rather than being a file of briefing notes could be a collection of local folk tales and myths (written by Jennifer Aldridge?).

In this case the archaeologists play their traditional role of 'unwitting fools meddling in those things which ought be left alone'.

[James Holloway]

Hmmm! The idea of the local secret society is an interesting one. The monster player could actually play the archaeologists as the Thing's unwitting pawns. I really like that.

I was thinking that I would rotate the players between scenarios -- that way, if you take heavy casualties as the Vikings, you get a little bonus in the form of extra ghosts in scenario 2, like a handicapping mechanism.

[zobo1942]

I'm working on something similar, a mini-campaign comprised of a series of linked encounters.

I've done things like award extra BP to the 'winner' of the game or subtract BP from the 'losing' side, or given them special items or weapons, or an extra move at the beginning of the following game, agents going 'Rogue', etc... I'm also in the process of writing 'fluff' text for each encounter, and trying to develop some characters along the way. 

I'm finding it challenging, but interesting and fun to work on.

[Mason]

I like the idea, James.
 

I will have to give this a little thought and get back to you on it.
 


Reminds me that I never did finish the write-up for the Black Dossier we played last year.....